Nimbleness

Growth - in plants, in animals, in humans, in learning - NEVER follows a straight line.  It occurs in fits and starts, ups and downs, sprints and diversions. 

Why then, do we assume that we can craft stability in an organization by pre-defining its movements, its plans, its trajectory?  If nothing else, we should read, and learn, from history. Those that are adept at adapting win the day (and the profit, and the customers, and the satisfaction of a job well done, and the future, and happiness).  

How might we make nimbleness an assumption in our organization, rather than some aspiration?

Vision and the Sunflower

By Nelson Coulter

Ever notice how sunflowers constantly face the sun as it makes its way across the sky? 

The same holds true, I think, of powerful organizational visions. When a vision has that powerful magnetism that compels attention (like the sun compels the attention of the sunflower), members of the organization are drawn to its allure, all day, every day.  They find themselves focusing on it without really having to think about it.  

Does the vision for/of your organization, either stated or implied, have that kind of magnetic power for your membership?

Grounded

By Nelson Coulter

Over the years I have often encouraged, even admonished, young folks entering my profession (educational leadership) to stay “grounded.”  I use that word often, but too rarely clarify what it means.

In his book titled Growing a Farmer: How I Learned to Live Off the Land  (2011), Kurt Timmermeister eloquently chronicles his personal evolution from big city restaurateur to small-time farmer.  His writing reinforces what Moe (my lovely bride) and I have learned about being stewards of the land - that our lives are more settled (i.e., “grounded”) when we choose to live with the natural forces of sun, wind, rain, seasons, life, and death, rather than to frantically and futilely oppose them.  We have learned (are learning) to be grounded.  But, what does the word “grounding” mean in the context of my mentoring young school leaders?

I think it means this: just as the elements and life forms of nature create a tapestry of intertwined and interdependent existence, so does the “life” of communities, of which its schools are simply a reflection, exist.  The schools as organizations have “life” in them; they are made up of adults and students of all sizes and ages and beliefs and dreams.  As well, they are made up of a wide range of gifts, systems, processes, coalitions, and rhythms.  When we, as school leaders, try to ignore that diversity of thinking and gifts, when we try to force homogeneity (whether by standardized curriculum, standardized testing, standardized clothing, or standardized behavior) we have, in effect, attempted to create what in nature is known as a monoculture.  In those efforts we introduce disharmony and dissonance between and among the very folks for whom we wish the opposite. 

The effect of these attempts to force homogeneity (to create a monoculture) is diminishment and devaluation of the very individuals and/or groups we presume to be “helping.”  Time and again, the authors of leadership texts remind us to spend more time developing relationships as the primary tool of leadership (rather than mandating and bureaucratizing).

Thus, I believe being “grounded” as a leader means to put ones eyes, ears, heart, and hands to the natural “pulse” of the school as an organization.  We must learn to trust that struggling to contrive and fabricate systems that work against the flow of nature means we create disharmony, both within the organization and within ourselves. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that we must, both in our work and in our personal lives, move toward that concept of being a good steward of the relationships, organizations, land, and resources with which we have been entrusted.  

In effect, we must become better servants.  That is the only way we can ever achieve that state of being “grounded.”

The Social Constructedness of Learning

Two events I attended this past weekend reminded me of a point made by C.A. Bowers in his 1995 book titled Educating for an Ecologically Sustainable Culture: Rethinking Moral Education, Creativity, Intelligence and Other Modern Orthodoxies.  (Yep, I'll bet you're wondering why in the world someone would read a book with that kind of title).

Bowers asserts in the book that there is no such thing as individual intelligence, that all intelligence is housed in a collective of the folks with whom you interact and engage.  In effect, intelligence is a social construct.  One analogy that might help explain this is to think of your social network as a big brain, each person in it representing a neuron.  Each time you interact with those in your network, it's like synapses firing and strengthening those associations.  It's sort of like CrossFit for the brain.

I attended the 10th anniversary of Hendrickson High School (HHS) in Pflugerville, Texas, last Friday.  I was honored to serve as the principal of HHS a few years back.  At Friday's event I was able to visit with numerous folks in my network, powerful thinkers and skillful educators who stretched me daily as we worked together to serve the HHS students.  Seeing so many of the people who helped "shape" me was a powerful reminder of Bowers' belief that our intelligence is not bounded within our own skull.

The very next morning I served as a facilitator at the annual Leadership in Action event for the UT Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP).  I have been honored to serve as a professor in that program for almost a decade now.  The 15 students who were finishing up their program at UTAPP were presenting their action research projects which serve as the capstone of their programming.  Spending the morning with those amazing thinkers and the other professors and coaches who craft the learning experiences for the students in the program was again an emphatic reminder to me that what I know and what I can do, my LEARNING, is not something that is owned by me, nor is it bounded by my physical being.  It is, in fact, embedded in the connections I have with others.

All that said, I am a man blessed beyond measure for having gotten to know, to think with, and to serve with these wonderful people (in both groups), most of whom have dedicated their lives to making better futures for young people.

Education and the Postal Service: An Analogy Worth Considering

By Nelson Coulter

Can we fix a floundering educational system?

As an educator in public schools for over 30 years, with the benefit of some deep scars and lengthy hindsight, I am coming to an ever-clearer conclusion about the education of our nation’s children.

In a global economy, those who provide goods and services must do so in a way that is responsive to the marketplace.  Consumers want good products/services at a fair price, and they want variety and choice in their options.  They want those products/services right now!  And, they want those products/services to have a degree of customization and personalization.

When entities of any kind focus on their internal processes rather than on the customer’s desired outcomes, they essentially choose to make themselves irrelevant to current and potential clients (i.e., market share).

Many in the education profession will challenge my assertion that education is in a competitive marketplace.  I believe their challenge is premised on a flawed assumption.  Choice in education has always been an option, for some.  Historically, it has only been an option for the wealthy and/or highly educated.  Those bases always placed a premium on quality education (at least, on a diploma from selected institutions).  What the global economy is doing to education is the same thing it has done in the other marketplaces – it has provided variety, choice, customization, personalization, relevance, and affordability to those who previously did not have the option of “shopping.” 

Just as the U.S. Postal Service has evolved itself into a black fiscal hole (noble intentions notwithstanding), I believe public education has been working itself toward the same end. (I am not picking on the Postal Service out of some particular malice. There is a plethora of governmental entities that I could use to draw the same analogy).

Government does have a critical role to play in education.  Democratic ideals sustain best with an educated electorate.  The role of government (the more local, the better) is to ensure the availability of a quality school, to guarantee the accessibility of all students to that school, to insist that the school is staffed by appropriately credentialed teachers, to provide an agreed upon foundational curriculum, and to establish accreditation criteria that monitor all the elements listed above.

To quote former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill,  “All politics are local.”   His point was that local issues and local politicians were the real drivers behind regional, state, and national issues, not the other way around.  I would argue that the same is true of education, though we seem to have been engaged in a decades-long experiment of trying it the “other way around.”

Let me return to the analogy of the U.S. Postal Service.  It has found itself in an untenable position fundamentally because it failed to adapt to the changing needs and desires of its client base, preferring to continue with its model of service that was created for a different era.  The U.S. Postal Service got into this predicament precisely because it viewed itself as the only option for its client base.  I believe that public education (as we have known it) will fall (in fact, is falling) victim to the same demise by that very sort of contextual blindness.  If we, the public education sector, continue to act as if we have a captive audience and perform as if we need not be responsive to the needs of our current clientele (not the clientele that existed 10, 20, or 30 years ago), those customers SHOULD leave us.  (Recall the fall of Blockbuster and the evaporation of Polaroid, to state just two examples of death by adaptive paralysis).

So, back to my original question - Can we fix a floundering educational system?  My answer is a qualified “yes.”

Here’s where I think Education differs from the U.S. Postal Service.  It is not too late for us – Education - to remake ourselves.  The smart money is on local schools that adapt and deliver education that is relevant to the real world their students will live in.  It’s a messy and challenging process, but at Guthrie CSD we’re attempting to do just that.

Soft vs Hard Data (and Learning)

There is a vigorous debate (some would call it a battle) going on around the nation, and within the halls of the Texas Capitol.  Much of it has to do with what the future of education should look like, what "good" schooling should be, and how students/schools/teachers should be measured (and labeled). 

Academic prowess is a good thing and we are right to address it with zeal in our schools.  However, an equally important set of learning outcomes exists, and in my view, schools should be addressing those elements, too.  I would even argue that those "soft" skills and ways of thinking may be even more important to the lifelong success and happiness of our children than is academic acumen. 

Seligman (2002) has identified six commonly "virtues" valued across many and varied cultures:  Wisdom/Knowledge, Courage, Humanitarianism, Justice, Temperance, and Transcendence.  

Similarly, Costa and Kallick (2000) identified 16 "habits of mind" representative of these "soft skills" that not only support academic performance, but enhance interpersonal and intrapersonal effectiveness:  Persisting, Managing impulsivity, Listening with understanding and empathy,Thinking flexibly, Metacognition, Striving for accuracy, Questioning and posing problems, Applying past knowledge to new situations, Thinking and communicating with clarity and precision, Gathering data through all senses, Creating-imagining-innovating, Responding with wonderment and awe, Taking responsible risks, Finding humor, Thinking interdependently, and Remaining open to continuous learning. 

The SCANS Report for America (2000) identified five skills and competencies needed for success in the work place:  1) Ability to identify, organize, and allocate resources of all kinds, 2) Interpersonal skills needed to work effectively with others, 3) Ability to acquire and evaluate information, 4) Systems thinking acumen, and 5) Ability to work with multiple technologies.  

Goleman (1998) posits along the same lines, framing these proclivities as "emotional intelligences": 
Self-awareness – the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions; 
Self-regulation – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances; 
Social skill – managing relationships to move people in the desired direction; 
Empathy - considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions; and 
Motivation - being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement. 
Goleman also provides measurement models for these dimensions.

Finally, Gardner (1983) describes the importance on diversified thinking in terms of "multiple intelligences" which he categorizes as: Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Linguistic, Bodily-kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic, and Existential. 

Many think of these skills and competencies as "soft."  However, as I reflect on the people I know personally as well as some of the widely known figures I admire and emulate, I find it is exactly these "soft" kinds of characteristics that generate my admiration for them, not their academic prowess.  Senge (1990) notes that the "soft" data is in many ways more important than the "hard" data, and that it is always more difficult to measure.  

We should not forsake considering some synthesis of these soft skills for inclusion as desirable outcomes pursued by schools simply because they are more ambigous and/or more difficult to measure. 

Builders

I'm currently reading a powerful book, Authentic Happiness (M.E.P. Seligman, 2003).  Dr. Seligman is a Ph.D. in Psychology, and in this book he focuses on the positive and proactive side of psychology, rather than on the back end issues of pathology and treatment.  It's a very intriguing read, and, in particular, he makes some interesting observations about raising children (which is, as you know, our "business" as educators).

A quote of Dr. Seligman's regarding the raising of his own children: 
"Raising children, I knew now, was far more than just fixing what was wrong with them.  It was about identifying and amplifying their strengths and virtues, and helping them find the niche where they can live these positive traits to the fullest."

We are responsible (morally obligated, I believe) for teaching our students a body of knowledge and skills that go FAR beyond the academic curricula.  At Guthrie CSD we have captured many of those elements in the development of our Guthrie Graduate Profile (linked here: http://www.guthriejags.com/profile.html).  How rare the number of communities and schools that have actually taken the time to carefully articulate (as have we) some of the beyond-the-academic elements that stand every bit as much of a chance of affecting meaningful, happy, and productive lives for our children as do the academic contents.  That work has meaning ONLY if we keep our own attention, and that of our children, centered on those elements.

As we enter the craziness of the "testing season" in Texas public schools, I believe there are some important things for us educators to reflect upon:  
>  our work along the non-academic lines is just as important as the work in the academic dimensions
>  the surest way to affect learning in students is for them to be in the charge of caring and nurturing adults
>  the fruit of our "work" may not be realized for years or even decades (and certainly will not be captured in the results of a multiple choice test taken on one particular day).

My lovely bride, Moe, wrote a song several years ago with a very powerful chorus in it:
A Builder's eyes can always see such great things that there might be
Hands are strong and arms will hold
A child's faith to shape and mold
Building hearts and building joys
Building girls and building boys
I remember the hands
I remember the heart
I remember the love...of a Builder

As educators, we are those loving Builders for our students (in some cases the only ones they have).